bureniafandomcom-20200215-history
Forum:Proto-Burenian reconstruction
Swadesh list Other words (we know) for reconstruction References Reconstruction Qytokant's thoughts On the Proto-Burenian tonal system: *Just like in Uxykascardijålekt, there were three tones, on both short and long vowels. *In Uxykascar the long low vowels merged with their short equivalents, whereas in Anka they merged with their non-low counterparts. Because of this development, there are some pairs with high tone in Anka but low in Uxy. *The long high vowels remained as such in Uxy, but became falling in Anka, and after that they became stressed low-tone vowels. *The neutral vowel /ə/ and its long equivalent /ə:/ did not make any tonal distinctions. /ə:/ later became å, which is why that vowel still doesn't distinguish tones. Short /ə/ merged with other, already existing vowel phonemes. Also, there are two things you seem to have failed to spot: *The word qatsÿłáto "spider" is supposed to be a compound of qatsÿ "eight" and łáto "foot". *The word têqìla "knife" is supposed to be a derivative of têqì "sharp". --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 19:42, October 27, 2014 (UTC) :On your proposals: :* Okay :o :* Possible :o :* :o :* The neutral tone did have tonal distinction; that's why it sometimes has a short "ì" in Uškárdijålekt. :Also, folk etymologies do not explain certain forms :P --~~ ::* Then we'll assume my hypothesis is true :o ::* Ditto. ::* Ditto. ::* We'll how the neutral vowel worked :P ::Such as your "cognates"? :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 12:10, October 28, 2014 (UTC) :::Indeed, though tone is always difficult :o :::Indeed, they preserve the original forms, while your forms were takavíhkified by folk etymologies :o --OuWTB 06:18, October 29, 2014 (UTC) ::::My theory will require the tone of some reconstructed words to be adjusted :o ::::Actually, you reconstructed "sharp" as *tḕkìś and "needle" as *tḕqìla. The -k- in *tḕkìś is obviously wrong (your dijålektaqë are already known to have fronted some/all uvulars, and this is about the least likely position for /k/ to back to /q/), so they seem to have been related in PB as well :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 06:42, October 29, 2014 (UTC) :::::In that case, I propose you make a list of proposals first :o ::::: :'( Anyway, "tkìla" is supposed to mean "needle", not "knife" :P --OuWTB 15:39, October 29, 2014 (UTC) ::::::Proposals for how to reconstruct tone in PB: ::::::*If Uxy and Anka have the same tone: reconstruct that one. ::::::*If Uxy has neutral and Anka has high: reconstruct neutral. ::::::*If Uxy has low and Anka has high: reconstruct long low. ::::::*If Uxy has long high and Anka has stressed low (i.e. both have ^): reconstruct long high. ::::::Same :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 15:48, October 29, 2014 (UTC) :::::::I tend to disagree more than with your previous proposal :o --OuWTB 16:29, October 29, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::If you had paid more attention you'd've noticed they're essentially the same :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 16:48, October 29, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::Mayhaps I asked you to compile a list with proposed changes in the reconstructed form, which you still haven't done :o --OuWTB 07:16, October 30, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::Like as in changing your current rekʷestruḱonqë? Well, here are a few: ::::::::::*Make sure the reconstructed tones correspond to my theory. There are some difficult cases which might need some more discussion. ::::::::::*Some words may need the same "uvular correction" as in "sharp". A specific one is "what", which has /c/ in Anka and /q/ in Uxy, which I'd reconstruct as *qjì, with *qj > *kj > c in Anka and *qj > q in Uxy. ::::::::::*I'm not sure whether the *-hán ending of some numerals should be accented, as in most cognates it is not. ::::::::::--QytokantFRÅGOR??? 13:51, October 30, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::*You got a list? :o :::::::::::*A "j" would be very unlikely, as Svârje has not "j". :::::::::::*The accent is mostly based on the fact that Uxy. has "t'án", but you are free to remove it. --OuWTB 06:15, October 31, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::*I'm quite sure I've already said how tones should be reconstructed according to my theory :P ::::::::::::*This is our first one with *qj-, isn't it? Svârjë could have started with the same *qj > *q change as Uxy, followed by the usual *q > k :P ::::::::::::*Well, given that the numerals have been shortened a lot, all we can be sure about that "one" had an accent somewhere after the *th. So it might as well be directly after it :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 06:45, October 31, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::*I'm pretty sure you're just being lazy :P :::::::::::::*I'm not sure it'd work that way. Especially as Svârjë has nowhere lost the -j- :P :::::::::::::*Elaborate :P --OuWTB 16:16, October 31, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::*Well, I believe you haven't reconstructed any words with long high tone in Uxy as having a long high tone in PB :P ::::::::::::::*I'm pretty sure /qj/ would be a very unstable cluster though, and thus likely to change :P Anyway, if you insist that there was no -j-, how would you reconstruct it? ::::::::::::::*The current reconstructions for "one", "two" and "three" are "athaq-hán", "ał-hán" and "qâkju-hán". All dijålekts have shortened these, and now the accent falls on the first surviving syllable in all dijålekts. So, the number three, which in no dijålekt has an accent on the second syllable, only provides evidence against the -hán ending being stressed. The numbers one and two are a bit more dubious, but "one" has no real evidence against the accent being directly after the -th- rather than on the ending, and in fact the evidence of the ending being unaccented in "three" supports the ending in "one" being unaccented as well. "Two" has the accent on the second syllable in Anka and Kòb, but that can be explained as a result of the general shortening of the numerals, in which those two dijålekts simply dropped the a-. So an in my opinion better reconstruction would be "atháq-han", "ał-han" and "qā́kju-han". --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 19:32, October 31, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::*Then provide me with a list of concrete changes :P :::::::::::::::*Maybe there were two forms initially :o :::::::::::::::*For now we stick to *qâkju-han. Other than that, agreed :P --OuWTB 16:37, November 1, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::*You like being annoying, don't you? :'( Anyway: ::::::::::::::::**leg: *àukjî -> *àukjī́ ::::::::::::::::**to breathe: *lâxjañ -> *lā́xjañ ::::::::::::::::**to hear: *kjàttañ -> *kjā́ttañ ::::::::::::::::**to think: *dûmjañ -> *dū́mjañ ::::::::::::::::**to walk: *melṑłmañ -> *melṓłmañ ::::::::::::::::**to float: *trḕ-ífañ -> *trḗ-ífañ ::::::::::::::::**river: *târakaś -> *tā́rakaś ::::::::::::::::**sea: *okjxî -> *okjxī́ ::::::::::::::::**mountain: *kaptíljô -> *kaptíljṓ ::::::::::::::::**sharp: *tḕqìś -> *tḗqìś ::::::::::::::::**sick: *xwū̀kś -> *xwū́kś ::::::::::::::::**needle: *tḕqìla -> *tḗqìla ::::::::::::::::**to open: *lam(-àx)kjañ(-ñ) -> *lam(-ā́x)kjañ(-ñ) ::::::::::::::::*That makes sense :o ::::::::::::::::Gùto :P Anyway, how is the ^ in you reconstruction supposed to be pronounced? --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 08:20, November 2, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::*Leg: okay, as long as the -c- variant remains :P :::::::::::::::::*Hear/think: okay :::::::::::::::::*Walk/float: very unlikely, it wouldn't explain the diphthongues in Svârjë or Anka. :::::::::::::::::*River/sea/mountain: okay :::::::::::::::::*Sharp/sick/needle: very unlikely, can't be a falling tone in Anka. :::::::::::::::::*Open: okay :::::::::::::::::@^: I have no idea :o --OuWTB 10:41, November 2, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::No, wait. I was looking wrong. I think we've got a fundamental difference in thought :P --OuWTB 11:16, November 2, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::*Leg: gùto :P :::::::::::::::::::*Hear/think: gùto :P :::::::::::::::::::*Walk/float: a different tone doesn't explain diphthongs? :o :::::::::::::::::::*River/sea/mountain: gùto :P :::::::::::::::::::*Sharp/sick/needle: reread my theory :P :::::::::::::::::::*Open: gùto :P :::::::::::::::::::*^: tsss... :P :::::::::::::::::::What difference in thought do you mean? :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 15:35, November 2, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::I don't see how a long rising tone would become a short falling tone in Anka. --OuWTB 06:03, November 3, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::Again, reread my theory: /áá/ > /áa/ > /â/ > /à/ :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 06:46, November 3, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::It's a bit far fetched though :o In that case, my only point of opposition remains walk/float :o --OuWTB 16:49, November 3, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::At least it explains why long high in Uxy tends to correspond to short low in Anka :P So, is the problem in walk/float the tone or the quality? :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 19:00, November 3, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::Both :o OuWTB 21:23, November 3, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::Elaborate :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 06:36, November 4, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::@float: it doesn't make sense in the current reconstruction either I see, so never mind :P ::::::::::::::::::::::::::@walk: While *melṓłmañ > melôłma makes sense with the new rules, *melṓłmañ > meuma does not. In Svârjë, tones got lost pretty early, so there is no possibility of a long sequence like /áá/ > /áa/ > /â/ > /à/. Therefore, we must assume that the original tone was falling already. Why? Simply because "meuma" exhibits the "eu" diphthongue, which generally only occurs when two syllables got fused. Such a fusion is only possible with a neutral and a falling tone. Therefore, the original tone was falling. --OuWTB 07:33, November 4, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::@float: Tsss... :P :::::::::::::::::::::::::::@walk: So Svârjë is takavénki? :P Anyway, a falling tone would have remained as such in Uxy, so that doesn't make sense either. Mayhaps there was another form, which was kept in Svârjë but lost in Uxy and Anka? :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 15:42, November 4, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::The only difference in that case would be the tone :P --OuWTB 18:00, November 5, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::And maybe also the -ł- :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 06:49, November 6, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::No, it has assimilated into the diphthongue :P --OuWTB 07:16, November 6, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::As I said, Spjaurjîdijålekt sago takavénki :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 13:36, November 6, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::It is rather conservative though :o --OuWTB 06:16, November 7, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::The bits that aren't conservative are takavíhki though :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 06:34, November 7, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Maybe from your point of view though :o --OuWTB 14:20, November 7, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Maybe you agree though :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 14:30, November 7, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Mayhaps I do not though :o --OuWTB 15:36, November 7, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :'( --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 09:34, November 8, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Look at what you've done. Now we're both sad :( --OuWTB 15:44, November 8, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Look at what you've done. You considered a dijålekt which isn't your own netakavíhki :'( --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 19:03, November 8, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Your one-track mind is in the way of you looking objectively at things :o --OuWTB 09:34, November 9, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::But why would you look objectively at a dijålekt's takavíhkiness, at which you can only look subjectively anyway? :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 10:00, November 9, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Unless we make a scale for dialect takavíhkiness :o --OuWTB 15:10, November 9, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Uxy: 0. Anka: 1. Tåpas: 2. Svârjë: 3. Tàkvíkis: 4. Kòb: 5. Timemaster: 6. :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 06:47, November 10, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I tend to disagree with the top four :o --OuWTB 15:52, November 10, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::You just proved that Burenians can't agree on such a thing as a dijålektitakavíhkiàtaskåla :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 18:39, November 10, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Maybe there are regional substandards :o --OuWTB 07:25, November 11, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::And then get a national standard by taking the average? --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 12:53, November 11, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Is there need for a national standard though? :o --OuWTB 06:20, November 12, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Of course not :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 13:34, November 12, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Then I propose we make regional substandards for dialectual takavíhkiness :o --OuWTB 07:21, November 13, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I've already uploaded version 1.0 of mine :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 10:07, November 13, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::So I can assume you need some fixing there? :o --OuWTB 16:09, November 13, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Of course, I've most likely missed quite a few features, and their relative takavíhkiness will also need to be adjusted :P How about yours? :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 16:38, November 13, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::First of all, all dialects have some deviations from the original pure language, therefore we must assume that all dialects are somewhat takavíhki. The fact that Uškárdijålekt has zero score means that you are not working scientifically, and thus your scale is untrue :o --OuWTB 06:15, November 14, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::As I said, some features are still missing :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 08:14, November 14, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::First of all, gutturálki r definitely deserves +5 at least :P --OuWTB 16:04, November 14, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::Hmmm... Let's say only gutturálki is +5 and both is +3 :P Also, it's occured to me that we should include grammatical takavíhkiness as well, possibly replacing "being eastern Burenian" and the like. So I propose +20 for having only one oblique case and +20 for overusing prepositions :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 20:58, November 14, 2014 (UTC) Yes, we're getting awfully close to a shared standard, but when it comes to eastern features we'll agree anyway :P :::::::::::::::::::I agree :o --OuWTB 11:15, November 15, 2014 (UTC) Pretty sure Anka's gonna win in case of a national standard though :P ::::::::::::::::::::Gùto :P I also think syllabic consonants should be +10 :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 18:23, November 15, 2014 (UTC) Not too sure about that though :P ::::::::::::::::::::: :o Syllabic consonants +5, kj > c +5, and infinitive on -i > +5 :P --OuWTB 10:36, November 16, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::Nasal vowels +5 :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 18:56, November 16, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::Nasal vowels originally belong to the proto-language. It is the realisation of /ñ/. --OuWTB 06:08, November 17, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::: :'( We need a rekʷesktruḱon without them :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 06:40, November 17, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::Tsss... You clearly want a bad rekʷesktruḱon :o --OuWTB 15:29, November 17, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::Tsss... You don't realise that I've so far only been willing to improve the rekʷestruḱon :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 13:27, November 19, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::You are badifying it though with some of your badifications :P --OuWTB 15:34, November 19, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I shall prove nasal vowels to be an innovation of Anka :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 06:42, November 20, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Good luck. They no longer occur in Anka :o --OuWTB 07:07, November 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::You'll have to explain that, because as far as I know, they do :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 18:59, November 22, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Most of the /ñ/'s in Anka do not come from the original nasalised vowels, as they disappeared, compare: *rōftañ > röfta. --OuWTB 09:26, November 23, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Does Svârjë have nasal vowels? :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 12:20, November 23, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Not really :o --OuWTB 06:15, November 24, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::So we've got a bunch of dijålekts of which none preserve your rekʷestruḱted nasal vowels. How do we then even know PB actually had them? :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 14:32, November 24, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::They exist in older texts :o And otherwise, some vowels in the infinitive ending might have been dropped. --OuWTB 16:24, November 24, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::How certain are we those old ñ's represent nasalisation? :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 18:52, November 24, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::About as certain as the laryngeal theory maybe :o --OuWTB 07:28, November 25, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::So it's like *ñ probably existed, but eventually disappeared in all dijålekts and may have been nasalisation, but maybe just something like /ŋ/ :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 14:43, November 25, 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::That's pretty close yeah :o --OuWTB 15:34, November 25, 2014 (UTC)